3 ms·

There's no error, it doesn't matter what the observer is made of. Special relativity is meant to be consistent across all frames of reference. As another reply

There's no error, it doesn't matter what the observer is made of. Special relativity is meant to be consistent across all frames of reference. As another reply mentioned, from the perspective of a photon which is not interacting, time stands still. This is because we see the limit of the system where a moving body has zero mass, where things become infinite. But it still holds that a non comoving observer sees the opposite limit; the photon moving at the maximum possible speed through the medium of space. (Though the photon can gain mass depending on the reference frame)

jiggawatts 2y ago
> it doesn't matter what the observer is made of It does. This is a foundational philosophy-of-science kind of thing that is often not taught much, which is why you may be personally unfamiliar with it. For example, a hypothetical creature living on the surface of a neutron star made up of quark matter dominated by strong forces instead of EM forces might not agree about the postulates of SR! Such a being might talk about how moving EM charges are distorted, as-if they were hyperbolically rotated, causing EM-based condensed matter instruments to see a distorted view of the universe. Not because the universe is undergoing Lorentz transformations, but because the instruments changed shaped from spherically symmetric to ovoid. Such a creature might even claim that there is a preferred rest frame, and that its apparent absence is something only EM-based matter experiments can show! The lenses in the optics change shape, not the gridlines of the rest of the universe. > Special relativity is meant to be consistent across all frames of reference. Special relativity was invented by Einstein to resolve inconsistencies in electromagnetic interactions. All experiments done to this date to verify SR have been either electromagnetic in nature, or involved matter as both the subject and instruments, both of which are dominated by EM effects. Sure, GR includes gravity fields as well, but SR does not. All of physics is a point of view from "inside" the universe where we can't disambiguate alternatives because we're affected by the same rules we're trying to observe. Some examples: - There's no difference between "spacetime expanding" and "matter shrinking". - There are mathematical representations of GR that do not require curved space time. - We can't measure the one-way speed of light, only the two-way speed of light. Etc...
- soulofmischief 2y ago
  > This is a foundational philosophy-of-science kind of thing that is often not taught much Why is that? > The lenses in the optics change shape, not the gridlines of the rest of the universe. And so the observer can correct for distorted measurements, if they can measure the distortion factor. But a distortion factor in measurement has no bearing on what is actually being observed. > There's no difference between "spacetime expanding" and "matter shrinking". At first glance, but can you satisfactory explain redshift/Hubble's law and the fact that objects at sufficient distance from the observer have an apparent size which is larger than expected? As well as a host of consistency issues in other known physical constants that would arise, such as a corresponding increase in the strength of the electromagnetic force? In general, we would have to throw away special relativity, as the only realistic explanation would be that the speed of light is slowing down. Until we can experimentally verify this, the idea that matter could be shrinking is purely theoretical, other problems aside. I'm happy to check out any credible literature on the subject, if you can provide it.

jiggawatts 2y ago

> it doesn't matter what the observer is made of It does. This is a foundational philosophy-of-science kind of thing that is often not taught much, which is why you may be personally unfamiliar with it. For example, a hypothetical creature living on the surface of a neutron star made up of quark matter dominated by strong forces instead of EM forces might not agree about the postulates of SR! Such a being might talk about how moving EM charges are distorted, as-if they were hyperbolically rotated, causing EM-based condensed matter instruments to see a distorted view of the universe. Not because the universe is undergoing Lorentz transformations, but because the instruments changed shaped from spherically symmetric to ovoid. Such a creature might even claim that there is a preferred rest frame, and that its apparent absence is something only EM-based matter experiments can show! The lenses in the optics change shape, not the gridlines of the rest of the universe. > Special relativity is meant to be consistent across all frames of reference. Special relativity was invented by Einstein to resolve inconsistencies in electromagnetic interactions. All experiments done to this date to verify SR have been either electromagnetic in nature, or involved matter as both the subject and instruments, both of which are dominated by EM effects. Sure, GR includes gravity fields as well, but SR does not. All of physics is a point of view from "inside" the universe where we can't disambiguate alternatives because we're affected by the same rules we're trying to observe. Some examples: - There's no difference between "spacetime expanding" and "matter shrinking". - There are mathematical representations of GR that do not require curved space time. - We can't measure the one-way speed of light, only the two-way speed of light. Etc...

soulofmischief 2y ago
> This is a foundational philosophy-of-science kind of thing that is often not taught much Why is that? > The lenses in the optics change shape, not the gridlines of the rest of the universe. And so the observer can correct for distorted measurements, if they can measure the distortion factor. But a distortion factor in measurement has no bearing on what is actually being observed. > There's no difference between "spacetime expanding" and "matter shrinking". At first glance, but can you satisfactory explain redshift/Hubble's law and the fact that objects at sufficient distance from the observer have an apparent size which is larger than expected? As well as a host of consistency issues in other known physical constants that would arise, such as a corresponding increase in the strength of the electromagnetic force? In general, we would have to throw away special relativity, as the only realistic explanation would be that the speed of light is slowing down. Until we can experimentally verify this, the idea that matter could be shrinking is purely theoretical, other problems aside. I'm happy to check out any credible literature on the subject, if you can provide it.